Exist developer discusses creating an existential horror game

Q&A: "Your character is the mystery to be solved" in upcoming game for PC and Mac.

First-person horror adventure Exist aims to tackle themes of existentialism and social injustice. The game's central puzzle revolves around the character you play—"your character is the mystery to be solved"—and the prejudices to which they are subjected. Wired.co.uk got in touch with developer Ansh Patel of Narcissist Reality to find out what inspired the philosophy game and to learn a little more about the development process.

Wired.co.uk: How did the idea for Exist come about?

AP: I'd say the core of the idea came from a surreal fever dream I had a few months back, most of which I could remember I have described in my Twine-made devblog "The Process." I believe it was a byproduct of growing up in an Internet culture where the inherent hate and prejudice that always existed among some of us has become a lot more apparent for all of us to see than it would have otherwise.

Thematically, I was inspired by some of Ingmar Bergman's films, particularly Wild Strawberries and The Seventh Seal, along with Salvador Dali's surrealist art. Structurally, the game was inspired very much by the poetic stream-of-consciousness prose of Virginia Woolf's, especially in her seminal novel The Waves.

Why did you choose a horror game particularly? Is there something fundamentally horrifying about existence and society?

Yes, that was precisely the reason. I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes. Every man may be an island, but that island also gets affected and defined by the ocean that surrounds it.

How many different character types can you play as? Is there just one or are there several?

At the moment, there are three different character types you can play as. The first of them is actually a randomly generated one. Within this random generation, we have two planned types:

1) Defined: one which puts character at the fore and from the start assigns the characters randomized traits, personality (which is obviously left for the player to figure out).

2) Natural: Which is more like an RPG where the character is the vessel of the player and depending on what they observe and interact ends up defining the character.

The other two characters are actually scripted. This is because I wanted to write few conventional characters with a clearly defined background and then fit within the game's structure. It not only gives me a chance to try out some interesting ideas on how they will play out differently from the randomly generated character, but it also allows me to write a more defined background and personality for them. Each of these characters has its own set of unique dream scenarios each of which deals with a central question.

Were you tempted at any point to embed the same ideas in a more traditional game type rather than make a statement game?

Exist was born from a rough prototype called Ten Minutes, which I had made to play a lot like conventional first-person adventures like Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs but with related themes on societal prejudice. I think if anybody were to play Exist, on first glance it would feel like a conventional adventure game in many ways, since observation and interaction are the core elements of the gameplay. But it also has twists to the formula, especially in terms of structure, which make it fairly unconventional in my opinion.

Are you using ludonarrative dissonance [conflict between play and story] as a game mechanic?

I personally see Exist's mechanics as less of ludonarrative dissonance and more of dissociating player and character consciously. The latter may be a byproduct of the former sometimes, but here the very premise is making its players realize that there is a specific distance between you and your character. You and they are not one, but you may have a say in what they become. When the game's core mechanic is asking "who are you playing as?" I believe the dissonance is less intrusive and more constructive in exploring the relationship between the player and their character—something which has fascinated me about games.

Can the game ever come to a satisfying conclusion given the complexity of the issues you are aiming to deal with?

It's definitely a challenge to put it mildly. Not simply because presenting such complex concepts can be an issue on a limited budget, but also because it can expand wildly if you don't get a rein on it. Scope creep is the biggest enemy and since we're just a team of two, it is an important factor to consider.

To add to that, my process of design is more experiential where I am fairly flexible about quite a lot of aspects about the game. I know that comes with its own set of risks, but I prefer it that way because the more I work on a concept, the better I get to know it and the more I want that to reflect in the game.

Were you influenced by other games?

Not entirely but I think some of the recent wave of experimental first-person adventure games like Dear Esther, Gone Home, and The Stanley Parable may have influenced me in some ways. Each of them defies some traditional aspect of "what is a game?" and I think that is my primary intention with Exist as well. In terms of a more direct influence, I think Dear Esther's use of environment as a tool to convey its story (environmental storytelling, in simpler words) definitely inspired me in some way when I was initially designing Exist.

Have there been other games which you think tackle problems of existence and social injustice well?

I think Planescape: Torment remains as the most significant game to have dealt with such philosophical themes directly, although its concerns were more with how mortality and identity are tied to one's memories. Exist on the other hand deals with some of the more fundamental questions related to our purpose, transient nature of happiness, and hatred which bear heavy on its characters' minds.

Social injustice has rarely been presented properly in games as far as I'm aware. The most you'll see is the occasional dilemma brought up in RPGs where certain races/species are poorly treated by the society. But such games don't directly affect players. It often boils down to a simple "black or white" decision.

Sidney Fussell said in an excellent article on Gamasutra recently [Can Videogames Teach Us About Race?] that token diversity has become a fashion in some genres, just to show they're catering to different races and gender in their audiences. Like, RPGs allow you to customize your characters' skin color, but that's merely a cosmetic change and presents diversity only for the namesake. With Exist, I'm attempting to express that through mechanics and through how the world around you reacts based on your skin color and/or gender. Obviously, that is a facet of the mystery surrounding your character's identity and something that the players themselves will have to figure out.

The game information released so far appears to feed into or perhaps play with the idea of the indie developer-as-philosopher. Do you think the game will be seen as a parody?

I'm not sure if I am understanding your question correctly, but if you mean that philosophical games are often tagged as pretentious by many gamers, then I'd say I'm certainly aware of that notion, but I personally see it less as pretension and more as ambition. We are currently undergoing an interesting phase as a medium where many games are beginning to question "What is a game?" Some of these games like Gone Home and even Journey get put down by many as "interactive setpieces," but at the same time these games also stretch the definitions of a game in the minds of many. Pretentious or non-conformist is entirely dependent upon your own perspective.

Why the developer name 'Narcissist Reality'? Is that a statement of your own belief?

Like many other names, it just seemed like a cool name to make games under, especially since my online persona has the word "narcissus" in it. But I think it has made more sense as I've consciously thought about it in the months since I began using that name (I made my first game this April during Ludum Dare).

I think the word "ego" has a lot of negative connotations attached to it, but I think it's only our willingness to believe in the best within us which makes us think like that. We are selfish creatures by nature, and everything we do is for our selfish gain (or that's what I believe at least). Likewise, creativity is a reflection of the artist's ego, and their creations can be seen as a "reality" of that ego.

Exist is planned for release on PC and Mac in 2014. This article originally appeared on Wired.co.uk. You can read it as it initially appeared here.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Basically labels have a "one size fits all" baggage associated with them. We see it all the time here with labels like "shill".

In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world

Now doesn't that sound like people in our present time? The horror is in realizing you can't leave.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Uhm... it depends on the context. If you use the term to imply the presence of negative attributes based on a stereotype of Japanese men (which may or may not be accurate and may or may not apply to that individual), then it is not politically correct- and has negative consequences.

The concept sounds excellent. I love the idea of a game that challenges the way we think and the way we see ourselves. As an example, it took me many years to understand the ways that I was similar to my parents (the good and the bad).

There are many comments in this thread on labels. Labels are essential to help us understand things around us ... but they can be dangerous when they limit and unduly influence our thinking. My boys often refer to "girl colours", which leads to a concept that men and women are very different in many ways. I constantly challenge this language and ask "what is a girl colour?"

Despite my comments, I am opposed to populist thinking (which is very similar to political correctness). We have far too many hangups today with people being overly sensitive. I find the hypocrisy of modern movements to be more damaging than helpful. I hope the author doesn't get sucked into populist thinking.

No to be mean, but Patel and the game are coming off as a little pretentious. It seems like this is going to be yet another piece of bad "art" created by yet another coffee shop kid/would be hipster. And then those who don't like are going to be criticized as "not getting it" or stricken with some kind of hateful label like those the games is supposed to be against.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Uhm... it depends on the context. If you use the term to imply the presence of negative attributes based on a stereotype of Japanese men (which may or may not be accurate and may or may not apply to that individual), then it is not politically correct- and has negative consequences.

Or even removing negative attributes from the table for a moment, it becomes a limiting short hand ... "Japanese man" may describe the individual's ethnic, cultural or national origin but it inherently restricts that individual's identity. We like taxonomical shorthand, but our identity doesn't exist in that bubble. A Caucasian born with Japanese citizenship is just as readily described as Japanese as someone of born to an ethnic Japanese family in Rwanda. Does "Japanese" really describe them both identically? Not in the slightest. Just like a man born genetically male, and a woman who is a transgender man (and for this exercise completely passes in society) could equally be described as "a man" but their identities, experiences, and outlooks are likely to be completely different.

No to be mean, but Patel and the game are coming off as a little pretentious. It seems like this is going to be yet another piece of bad "art" created by yet another coffee shop kid/would be hipster. And then those who don't like are going to be criticized as "not getting it" or stricken with some kind of hateful label like those the games is supposed to be against.

Maybe, but I see experiments like this as part of games growing up, and out. There's going to be plenty of failures as well as successes, but at least people are trying. History will be our best judge.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Uhm... it depends on the context. If you use the term to imply the presence of negative attributes based on a stereotype of Japanese men (which may or may not be accurate and may or may not apply to that individual), then it is not politically correct- and has negative consequences.

Or even removing negative attributes from the table for a moment, it becomes a limiting short hand ... "Japanese man" may describe the individual's ethnic, cultural or national origin but it inherently restricts that individual's identity. We like taxonomical shorthand, but our identity doesn't exist in that bubble. A Caucasian born with Japanese citizenship is just as readily described as Japanese as someone of born to an ethnic Japanese family in Rwanda. Does "Japanese" really describe them both identically? Not in the slightest. Just like a man born genetically male, and a woman who is a transgender man (and for this exercise completely passes in society) could equally be described as "a man" but their identities, experiences, and outlooks are likely to be completely different.

Not at all. Labels aren't restrictive, they're descriptive. Your example of the two Japanese men actually is not even related to societal labels at all, it's just straight up equivocation: the reason you call the one man "Japanese" is different from the reason you call the other "Japanese", and you don't mean the same thing by the word. That's not a flaw of labels in society, that's just a basic problem with language, period.

However, within the context of what is meant in both cases by the word it applies to them exactly and precisely. One is of Japanese ancestry, one is of Japanese citizenship. That's not at all restrictive, unless you add in additional assumptions about what being Japanese means.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Uhm... it depends on the context. If you use the term to imply the presence of negative attributes based on a stereotype of Japanese men (which may or may not be accurate and may or may not apply to that individual), then it is not politically correct- and has negative consequences.

Or even removing negative attributes from the table for a moment, it becomes a limiting short hand ... "Japanese man" may describe the individual's ethnic, cultural or national origin but it inherently restricts that individual's identity. We like taxonomical shorthand, but our identity doesn't exist in that bubble. A Caucasian born with Japanese citizenship is just as readily described as Japanese as someone of born to an ethnic Japanese family in Rwanda. Does "Japanese" really describe them both identically? Not in the slightest. Just like a man born genetically male, and a woman who is a transgender man (and for this exercise completely passes in society) could equally be described as "a man" but their identities, experiences, and outlooks are likely to be completely different.

Not at all. Labels aren't restrictive, they're descriptive. Your example of the two Japanese men actually is not even related to societal labels at all, it's just straight up equivocation: the reason you call the one man "Japanese" is different from the reason you call the other "Japanese", and you don't mean the same thing by the word. That's not a flaw of labels in society, that's just a basic problem with language, period.

However, within the context of what is meant in both cases by the word it applies to them exactly and precisely. One is of Japanese ancestry, one is of Japanese citizenship. That's not at all restrictive, unless you add in additional assumptions about what being Japanese means.

Or even removing negative attributes from the table for a moment, it becomes a limiting short hand ... "Japanese man" may describe the individual's ethnic, cultural or national origin but it inherently restricts that individual's identity. We like taxonomical shorthand, but our identity doesn't exist in that bubble. A Caucasian born with Japanese citizenship is just as readily described as Japanese as someone of born to an ethnic Japanese family in Rwanda. Does "Japanese" really describe them both identically? Not in the slightest. Just like a man born genetically male, and a woman who is a transgender man (and for this exercise completely passes in society) could equally be described as "a man" but their identities, experiences, and outlooks are likely to be completely different.

So would you instead recommend getting rid of all descriptive language, since any description limits what is being described? Should, in the name of the limitless potential of complete ambiguity, every sentence be condemned if it is more 'limiting' than "a person did a thing?" After all, to describe the person would be to limit them, as would a description of what they did therefore limit their accomplishment.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Uhm... it depends on the context. If you use the term to imply the presence of negative attributes based on a stereotype of Japanese men (which may or may not be accurate and may or may not apply to that individual), then it is not politically correct- and has negative consequences.

Or even removing negative attributes from the table for a moment, it becomes a limiting short hand ... "Japanese man" may describe the individual's ethnic, cultural or national origin but it inherently restricts that individual's identity. We like taxonomical shorthand, but our identity doesn't exist in that bubble. A Caucasian born with Japanese citizenship is just as readily described as Japanese as someone of born to an ethnic Japanese family in Rwanda. Does "Japanese" really describe them both identically? Not in the slightest. Just like a man born genetically male, and a woman who is a transgender man (and for this exercise completely passes in society) could equally be described as "a man" but their identities, experiences, and outlooks are likely to be completely different.

Not at all. Labels aren't restrictive, they're descriptive. Your example of the two Japanese men actually is not even related to societal labels at all, it's just straight up equivocation: the reason you call the one man "Japanese" is different from the reason you call the other "Japanese", and you don't mean the same thing by the word. That's not a flaw of labels in society, that's just a basic problem with language, period.

However, within the context of what is meant in both cases by the word it applies to them exactly and precisely. One is of Japanese ancestry, one is of Japanese citizenship. That's not at all restrictive, unless you add in additional assumptions about what being Japanese means.

On what planet is language not an expression of semiotics?

And it is restrictive because language is a codification of meaning.

So, it's all about semantics and semiotics: Never about empathy and hence compassion. Plasticity of the brain is not impossible. I believe that this is the deeper subject matter that this game will try to bring upon the table.The question is: can it be accomplished?

So would you instead recommend getting rid of all descriptive language, since any description limits what is being described? Should, in the name of the limitless potential of complete ambiguity, every sentence be condemned if it is more 'limiting' than "a person did a thing?" After all, to describe the person would be to limit them, as would a description of what they did therefore limit their accomplishment.

Are you this dense or just incurious?

Description is necessary to explain concepts, but one description is not the whole of reality.

No to be mean, but Patel and the game are coming off as a little pretentious. It seems like this is going to be yet another piece of bad "art" created by yet another coffee shop kid/would be hipster. And then those who don't like are going to be criticized as "not getting it" or stricken with some kind of hateful label like those the games is supposed to be against.

Maybe, but I see experiments like this as part of games growing up, and out. There's going to be plenty of failures as well as successes, but at least people are trying. History will be our best judge.

I'm all for more variety in games and new gaming experiences, but games don't need to "grow up." This idea that making more "mature" games that make complex social commentary are going to lead to non-gamers becoming gamers is bunk. We're well past the point now where gaming has hit a critical mass in society. Barring some sort of revolutionary redefinition of what gaming is, there's not much more that anyone can do that's going to make more people want to play games. If people don't like Mario now, they're not going to like Mario when it becomes a parable for the reverse-gentrification of Brooklyn.

That's not to say that some people want games with mature themes. I think that's a good thing. It's just that it's not the ultimate reason why people play games in the first place: to have fun. Having a decent story, interesting characters, and, yes, even social commentary doesn't mean jack if the core gameplay and mechanics aren't decent. That's why Bioshock Infinite became boring in the long, middle stretch, despite it's absolutely brilliant story and world. It's also why "art games" like The Path aren't very fun.

If Exist has decent gameplay and is fun, I'll play it. If not, then I won't, regardless of the presence or lack of social commentary. Suffice to say, the trailer doesn't impress me much.

Our beloved video games do have the potential to be a lot more than we are limiting them to be.

We don't have to be just another button-smashing gamer that does not fully consider making the transition into a "deeper-thinker" person that's tired of the repetitiveness of the same-old mechanics and scenarios and plot-lines of most current video games.

We tend to buy games that are more on the side of being mediocre, to say the least, but when it comes to supporting something that's a little bit more fulfilling, we tend to close our wallets on them..

Perhaps the problem lies in that some of us are growing out of the shallowness of the current state of games and are happier to find deeper meaning in other, more traditional mediums, which is in this case a sad story to tell.

Our beloved video games do have the potential to be a lot more than we are limiting them to be.

We don't have to be just another button-smashing gamer that does not fully consider making the transition into a "deeper-thinker" person that's tired of the repetitiveness of the same-old mechanics and scenarios and plot-lines of most current video games.

We tend to buy games that are more on the side of being mediocre, to say the least, but when it comes to supporting something that's a little bit more fulfilling, we tend to close our wallets on them..

Perhaps the problem lies in that some of us are growing out of the shallowness of the current state of games and are happier to find deeper meaning in other, more traditional mediums, which is in this case a sad story to tell.

Why are you speaking in third person plural?

---Also, maybe I just don't get it, but that trailer does not exactly scream "Horror!" to me. I know, it's just another label...

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Uhm... it depends on the context. If you use the term to imply the presence of negative attributes based on a stereotype of Japanese men (which may or may not be accurate and may or may not apply to that individual), then it is not politically correct- and has negative consequences.

Or even removing negative attributes from the table for a moment, it becomes a limiting short hand ... "Japanese man" may describe the individual's ethnic, cultural or national origin but it inherently restricts that individual's identity. We like taxonomical shorthand, but our identity doesn't exist in that bubble. A Caucasian born with Japanese citizenship is just as readily described as Japanese as someone of born to an ethnic Japanese family in Rwanda. Does "Japanese" really describe them both identically? Not in the slightest. Just like a man born genetically male, and a woman who is a transgender man (and for this exercise completely passes in society) could equally be described as "a man" but their identities, experiences, and outlooks are likely to be completely different.

Yes, it limits, but that's kind of the point. If I'm in an airport and someone asks me "who was standing in line in front of you?", and I say "An asian man", I'm using those words precisely to limit the scope. I'm not going to feel bad about 'labeling' people with descriptions so that I may communicate effectively. Hell, I may even be wrong in my description, but I'm not going to feel like I'm 'keeping someone down' or limiting their potential' by saying someone looked like a male, or a businessman, or a vagabond, or european, because the alternative, being vague and unassuming, is just ridiculous and impractical.

Our beloved video games do have the potential to be a lot more than we are limiting them to be.

We don't have to be just another button-smashing gamer that does not fully consider making the transition into a "deeper-thinker" person that's tired of the repetitiveness of the same-old mechanics and scenarios and plot-lines of most current video games.

We tend to buy games that are more on the side of being mediocre, to say the least, but when it comes to supporting something that's a little bit more fulfilling, we tend to close our wallets on them..

Perhaps the problem lies in that some of us are growing out of the shallowness of the current state of games and are happier to find deeper meaning in other, more traditional mediums, which is in this case a sad story to tell.

Why are you speaking in third person plural?

---Also, maybe I just don't get it, but that trailer does not exactly scream "Horror!" to me. I know, it's just another label...

I cannot make heads or tails of this, but I am curious and I'd probably give it a go. I've lowered my standards since the flood of pay2win games in the recent years. By that I mean I will give them one or two days of unbiased play disregarding any cash shops which I absolutely hate. There have been a couple with game play decent enough to stick around for a while, but only because it was still possible for non cash players to get ahead.

An interesting idea, but the developers perhaps ought to keep an eye on why most people play video games, and why games such as Battlefield and Call of Duty are so popular: mindless entertainment. Games such as Planescape Torment are an aberration in this respect.

I suppose the RPG genre has done more than most to introduce concepts beyond visual satisfaction and adrenalin rush, but even then, if I want some intellectual stimulation I'm much more likely to reach to the book shelf for some Shestov, Camus or Heidegger than I am to fire up the gaming rig. I usually turn to games, even games with a rich meta game such as Path of Exile, for some pure entertainment rather than as philosophical allegory.

I hope this game succeeds, and it's a brave step, but I have my doubts as to what the potential audience is.

I'm all for more variety in games and new gaming experiences, but games don't need to "grow up." This idea that making more "mature" games that make complex social commentary are going to lead to non-gamers becoming gamers is bunk. We're well past the point now where gaming has hit a critical mass in society. Barring some sort of revolutionary redefinition of what gaming is, there's not much more that anyone can do that's going to make more people want to play games. If people don't like Mario now, they're not going to like Mario when it becomes a parable for the reverse-gentrification of Brooklyn.

Who said anything about attracting non-gamers? If the goal is to give existing gamers a richer palette of experiences to choose from, that's surely a good thing. I'm glad I played Heavy Rain, despite its flaws, because of the way it explored aspects of fatherhood. I'm glad I played Journey, a game I would normally have let pass by, because of the way it boiled human companionship down to essentials. And I'm glad I played The Stanley Parable, for teaching me the joys of broom cupboards. I'll keep returning to games which fall more within my comfort zone, but the fact that some devs are pushing boundaries means there are pleasant surprises for me to find, and I like that.

I guess it's a good thing that games are "growing up," for lack of a better phrase, but damn does this guy come across as pretentious. I'll definitely skip this game, as I just don't have patience for language like this.

Edit: I also love how he's not being "pretentious," he's being "ambitious." I think he's being both.

I feel the manner in which the society labels people based on their race, gender, or economic status often restricts them from truly becoming who they are—binding them in chains, restricting their identity into loosely defined, obsolete stereotypes

I get what he's saying, that women shouldn't make lower wages, discrimination should not exist, etc, but something about the way its said makes it sound like the labels themselves are evil. I've always felt that was crap, labels simply describe who we are. I'm not going to avoid describing someone as a Japanese man for fear of not being politically correct if they are from Japan and male. I also don't think its irrational to 'limit' a young white boy by assuming they won't grow up to be the first black female president.

Uhm... it depends on the context. If you use the term to imply the presence of negative attributes based on a stereotype of Japanese men (which may or may not be accurate and may or may not apply to that individual), then it is not politically correct- and has negative consequences.

I fundamentally agree, but it's pretty dangerous to assume implied negativity for someone. It can result in conflict and group segmentation where none existed.

In existentialism, the individual's starting point is characterized by what has been called "the existential attitude", or a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world

Now doesn't that sound like people in our present time? The horror is in realizing you can't leave.

A game like this is something I couldn't have imagined when I was playing my Atari as a kid 30-35 years ago. We had Space Invaders and tried to knock out bricks with a bouncing ball, and of course Pac Man. Wow, stuff like this and Silent Hill are different, and creepy.